Russian active measures target Sweden

Golden showers, hookers, and Trump are the latest talk of the day, and no, it isn’t a 4chan prank, but an intelligence report from a former MI6 intelligence officer-turned private intelligence contractor. Now, we must make an important distinction that, just because the report was compiled by a former intelligence officer, this does not make any bit of it any more true. The sources are still being vetted and the sum total of information is still in question. As given that his sources are Russians, you can never be sure; as they don’t normally shy away from saturating the information cycle with any narrative you can imagine.

The most common explanation for this is, of course, that they are trying to promote politicians with a pro-Russian stance or to weaken the European Union in order to ensure more room for maneuvering in what the Kremlin considers its traditional sphere of influence.

Another possible goal might be undermining the Western world as a whole, creating chaos and confusion, and generating conflicting opinions in the public. Think of this as an information warfare DDoS attack. This point becomes more evident when reading the research published by the Swedish Institute of International Affairs, in a report titled “Russia’s strategy for influence through public diplomacy and active measures: the Swedish case,” authored by Martin Kragh and Sebastian Åsberg.

The report examines the Russian propaganda machine and its meddling in Swedish affairs. But despite the report’s focus on Sweden, it provides a perspective valuable to a wider audience and showcases the techniques Russians employ in order to influence decision-makers and shape public opinion.

Historically, Sweden does not have the best relations with its big neighbor in any of its political forms, from Tsarist Russia to the USSR to, now, the Russian Federation. Sweden is not part of NATO, but it has signed agreements that make Russia uneasy. In September 2014, for example, Sweden signed a host country agreement with the military alliance that allows NATO forces to be deployed in Sweden for training, and NATO member forces to be deployed in Sweden in case of a threat to its national security. It was that move and the Crimea annexation that kicked into high gear the Russian disinformation machine targeting Sweden. Given Russia’s ongoing campaign in Ukraine and what seems like the strengthening of ties between NATO and Sweden, the Russian government is facing a crisis: They could potentially have a full-fledged NATO member in their backyard. They’ve responded to that pressure by trying to influence the public opinion inside Sweden in their favor.

To that end, they have launched a Swedish version of the Sputnik website. The research authors dug through the site’s 4,000 published articles to find that the most common theme among them was the proclamation that the West was in crisis and the European Union was on the verge of breaking apart. They also emphasized the notion of Western aggressiveness, portraying NATO as the main instigator. Here we need to make an important distinction: These stories were not outright fabrications. Most cases took on a legitimate story and spun it until it had a pro-Russian lean. The Swedish researchers identified some outright fake new stories too, but they were the minority. Those fabrications, however, have their own value in such a campaign. These shape opinions, and they persist in the public discourse for years, even after being proved false. One such example of a Russian fabrication that has not gone away are the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a text fabricated by Okhrana, the Tsarist secret service. The text is still considered true in the public subconscious despite the obvious

Kragh and Åsberg identify 26 cases of outright forgery in their research, and one of those shows us how exactly disinformation works. It was supposedly a letter from Ukraine asking a Swedish prosecutor to not persecute a Swedish national for war crimes in Ukraine while he was there as a volunteer. That particular case was thrown in the water not to hurt Sweden’s public image, but Ukraine’s, making it appear as though the Ukrainian resistance deems war crimes acceptable. Another interesting case suggested NATO and Sweden supposedly conspired to send arms to Daesh through Turkey.

As specific as these examples may be, they show that, if Russia is willing to go to such lengths to influence the public opinion in a country as small as Sweden, anyone who is on the front line of the global stage should really watch out. But more than anything else, this is clear evidence of an information war being waged, wherein the greatest casualty is the truth.

Featured image courtesy of ytimg.com

We thought this story would be interesting for you, for full access to premium original stories written by our all veteran journalists subscribe here .

About the Author

Vasilis Chronopoulos
is a 5 year veteran of Greek SOF having served in 35th Mountain raiders battalion and in the Zeta amphibious raiders battalion. Now he is a freelance security contractor primarily working in the maritime security industry. Follow him on Twitter @billxronopoulos

Comments

To comment on this article please join/login.
Here's a sample of the comments on this post.

Holly M

Yes, I was... in a less than articulate way.... pointing towards there
being the facts and then assumptions. That can easily lead one down the
road to the conjunction fallacy (one Sanmon mentioned), especially when a
closing statement can be read multiple ways regarding
coincidence/accident.
I would imagine there are a lot of
Russian connections of various levels for many business and political
figures, not the least of which would be folks in the oil and gas
industry. And, More often than not in most of the "unfriendly" parts of
the world. It reminds me of the seven degrees of separation game. One
could substitute some other item in place of "Russia" and probably find
connections.
And, there has been a big debate on a whole host of
pros and cons on the effectiveness of sanctions. I've heard the same
said of China (and Iran for that matter) from a broad spectrum of
people-- a real mixed bag. I've heard conservatives and liberals, deeply
religious folks and atheists both agree and disagree with the
effectiveness of sanctions. Reminds me of the view of burning our flag
and freedom of speech -- how the Supreme Court ruling went down on that.
The justices were on different sides of the issues than one might
presume based on their political party affiliation.
Yes, agree
that no NATO leaves a bit of a power vacuum and recognized that
implication being beneficial to Russia. Still don't think it is nearly
as effective as it could or should be, though not as poorly administered
as UN. I suppose it is the way of large multinational governing bodies
and it has its purpose. But still not a big fan.
I did get a chance to skim an article on the changed language and it was described in that article as "softer" language:
"Finally, Trump staffers wrote an amendment to Denman’s amendment that
stripped out the platform’s call for 'providing lethal defensive
weapons” and replaced it with softer language calling for “appropriate
assistance.'"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/trump-campaign-guts-gops-anti-russia-stance-on-ukraine/2016/07/18/98adb3b0-4cf3-11e6-a7d8-13d06b37f256_story.html?utm_term=.ab39999e8a44
To
me, the language is more vague (not simply softer) and could open up
the door for a lot more latitude to provide support, not limited to
"lethal defensive weapons", and, therefore, may actually be beneficial,
if that was not its original intention.
Anyway, I am not
necessarily trying to undercut posed questions or any posited
facts, but presenting the idea that there is certainly more than one
possible reason for what is seen or noted. Facts mixed with untested assumptions
can lead one off in the wrong direction Certainly is creating a
lot of divisiveness and discord and always pointed at the legitimacy of
the soon to be President. Interesting days we live in.
Close
with a quote attributed to Aristotle: "It is the mark of an educated
mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

peter h

Seems to me SOFREP offers both sides of the coin. I think that is a good thing. Sure they report the same bullshit as CNN-NYTIMES etc, but they also report alternate narratives. That gets the dialogues going.
It is normal for people to disagree, and that is what is missing from the Political elite and MSM PR monopoly-
Dialogue!

Sanmon

I agree with you mostly on your points. I will add one thing. We need to stop focusing on the shinning object. We need to focus/look for who placed it there. Our Liberty is at stake.

TexJ3

To me, these are separate issues. I dint have a lot of time either right now (though I wish I did as I enjoy the discussion). One by one:
1) Could the Trump dossier be totally made up bull to be passed about by click hungry media? Yes. Then it will be discussed ad nauseum by an entertainment hungry populace rather than focusing on underlying harder issues and foreign policy questions. Question - who benefits from the dossier at this point in time and what other world events are ongoing that get no attention while attention is diverted to this crap show?
2) Podesta and DNC - the word hacking is overused and the term of the day for all things. By their own admission, generally, at least at first, nothing was changed. So, WikiLeaks and the information disclosed uncovered what was assumed - there was an underlying issue at the DNC. This included a morass of items. Not to mention Sanders being screwed over. So John Q. Public finds out that a flawed candidate is...flawed. Would it have mattered? I'm going to be biased as I have disclosed already...I am a Trump supporter. I can argue until blue in the face and my fingers fall of from typing, the Democrats ran a flawed candidate. She could not win as she was tone deaf to her constituency. The longterm Democrats in my family generally couldn't vote for her. Most of my Democratic friends couldn't vote for her. It had nothing to do with WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks proved what REPUBLICANS thought. So, did it change anything? Maybe at Thanksgiving that I am not totally a nut...lol. It did, however, put the seed of doubt in tbe hearts of America as to our Democratic process. That's more insidious. More dangerous.
So the IC report - it doesn't say the votes were impacted themselves at tbe booth, but that Russia influenced the election. It does in fact conclude this. I have my reasons, to take issue with completely tossing any report that that many agencies signed off on. I just cannot. Do I believe that they did something. Yes. What - I am not in a position to know that. I don't think she won because of Russia, but I do think that they tried if that's what the report says. But, I also will believe it because...don't we also try to influence foreign policy? That gets us to...kicking out ambassadors and sanctions, etc. Have we thought out an end game? China actually hacked us. We did nothing. Cyber warfare is occurring. We need to combat it. Picking fights with Russia at this point in time and in this manner. End game someone. I'm all for asking more questions. We need to. Instead, we focus on boycotting elections thay WILL happen, causing strife within our nation, being divisive - isn't that what Russia would want? Disinformation that democratic process is broken. No more trust.
Ok. I'm out of time for now. But I can accept that a report concluded one thing and even that they may be accurate as to an attempt by Russia. It would be hypocritical to say we never attempt to influence foreign governments. The question is the accuracy of what went into the box (decision making entities) and now what the new questions and answers are based on what came out of it. I do believe that Russia and China are not our friends. We had best buckle up as it's going to be a long, hard ride. A ride best shared. Want some scary research, go look at BRICS and AIIB. Check out what they are up to. Check out also who is the biggest player in bitcoins.
The news media changed long ago from investigator to entertainment. It's why I am on here and read elsewhere.
T3

Sanmon

Fair questions and I'll reply in more depth later but here goes cliff notes.
Could the Trump dossier be totally made up bull passed around by a puke to gin up the ugliest, most scurrilous claims, and then trust the click-hungry media to disseminate them(including SOFREP). No matter how false the allegations?
Was the initial report on Benghazi a LIE?
Was John Podeta even hacked?
Podesta gave out his password by his own admission.
How did the IC trace google server mail?
Was the DNC hacked?
Reports are that a former WikiLeaks person directly picked up by hand the DNC data in Washington DC.
Why aren't his accounts as creditable as the IC, when the IC had no availability to the server that the DNC "says" was hacked. The DNC would not let the FBI have access to it.
Why is the IC going to war with its soon to be Commander in Chief?
State sponsored Hackers do not copy data from source directly to initiator. Hackers use air-gap security. Meaning the system and location the data goes to is not even connected to the Internet. You may know that, most don't.
I don't have all the answers as you can tell. I have more questions than answers, as so should our Intelligence Community. What I don't like is reports and reporters lying to me through distortions or fabrication. The IC politicians are fabricating a story that I am sure of. Why?